Statement of the Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists (FFFJ)
on the killing of Christopher “Cris” Guarin

THE KILLING of General Santos newspaper publisher and RMN blocktimer Christopher Guarin hardly a week since the new year began is one more indication of the persistence of the culture of impunity that encourages the killing of journalists and media workers in the Philippines.

Unless the necessary steps are taken to speed up the ongoing trials of the accused in the killing of journalists as well as the masterminds , and to investigate, arrest, and try those involved in the killing of Guarin, as well as that of six other journalists in 2011, the killings are likely to continue in 2012 and the coming years.

Among the steps journalists and media advocacy groups including the Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists (FFFJ) proposed to the Aquino administration as early as August 2010 are strengthening the Witness Protection Program; rehabilitating the criminal investigation units of law enforcement agencies; organizing multi-sectoral Quick Response Teams; and reviewing the Rules of Court to speed up court trials. None of these proposals have so far been acted upon except that on the Witness Protection Program, the budget of which the government has increased.

The killing of Guarin demonstrates the urgency of the government’s acting on these proposals. FFFJ urges all media advocacy and journalists’ groups to intensify the campaign for government to do so, and calls upon civil society to add its voice to the imperative of punishing the guilty so as to end the culture of impunity that has claimed the lives of 124 journalists and media workers since 1986 to the detriment of the right of the people to information in a democratic regime.

Statement of the Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists (FFFJ)
on the first death anniversary of Senior State Prosecutor Leo B. Dacera

“A man who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”

~Mark Twain

Today is the first death anniversary of Leo B. Dacera III.

The longest serving director of the Department of Justice Witness Protection, Security and Benefits Program (DOJ WPSBP), he was fondly called “Sir PD,” PD being shorthand for Program Director.

As PD, Atty. Dacera directed the operations of the DOJ WPSBP with knowledge and insight. With a clear understanding of the Philippine criminal justice system, he believed that the program should go beyond keeping witnesses physically safe.  In his view, witness protection was not only about securing witnesses so they can testify in court. He understood their needs. They were persons who had also lost their lives, and had been cut off from loved ones, and from family and community.

Aware of how protracted Philippine criminal proceedings can be, Leo Dacera strove to sustain witnesses’ determination to testify in court and, if necessary, to speak the truth to power, to stand against the powers-that-be, and those they wished to protect. To these witnesses, “Sir PD” was a tireless advocate, keeping up their morale, doing what he could to keep them in touch with their families and loved ones.  Leo Dacera did what he could  to strengthen witnesses’ trust in the criminal justice system; and to  encourage them to believe, as he did, that there would be, at the end of it all, justice and truth.

Working with inadequate funds, Leo Dacera was never discouraged. In the cases of extrajudicial killings including media killings, he coordinated with advocacy groups and was humble in his acceptance of such aid as livelihood assistance for the victims’ widows,  or educational grants for the children of slain journalists. He worked tirelessly to get more budgetary support and looked forward to being able to provide more for the needs of the witnesses in his care.

No task was too small for his attention. From petitioning for the change of venue of trials to places where there would be a greater chance for a just and fair hearing, or quickly spiriting a threatened witness to a more secure safe house; from guaranteeing the presence of witnesses at hearings, to looking after the welfare of their kin: to each task, he gave as much time, knowledge and energy, tirelessly coordinating his efforts with other officials, and with media advocacy and journalists’ groups.

As a public official and prosecutor, he was among that rare breed that shunned the limelight; he did not seek credit for his work and accomplishments. His integrity, dedication and compassion set him apart – and it was something one sensed immediately:  that one had found a special person and ally in the fight against impunity.

Leo Dacera was instrumental in the convictions for murder of the three men involved in the killing of Sultan Kudarat journalist Marlene Esperat.  He was also the head of the prosecution panel that made possible the inquest of Andal “Unsay” Ampatuan, Jr., one of the principal accused in the Ampatuan town  (Maguindanao) massacre.

He gave selflessly and thus lived fully. When he succumbed to a heart attack in the early morning of November 4, 2010, we in the Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists, Inc. lost an esteemed colleague and a cherished friend, whose generous spirit had given us so much strength.

In his memory, we pledge to continue the work to which he had given his life.

“To live in hearts we leave behind

Is not to die.”

~Thomas Campbell,

“Hallowed Ground”

Statement of the Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists, Inc. (FFFJ) on the Denial of the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition filed by the alleged masterminds in the killing of Marlene Esperat

IN A Decision dated 19 August 2011, the Court of Appeals Twenty-First Division of Cagayan de Oro City dismissed the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition filed by Osmeña Montañer and Estrella Sabay, the alleged masterminds in the murder of journalist Marlene Esperat. It took the appellate court’s Mindanao station almost two years to respond. But its 26-page decision reveals the care it took in arriving at the decision.

By dismissing the petition, the Court of Appeals Mindanao Station is in effect  allowing the service of the warrant of arrest against Montañer and Sabay.  It is now up to the law enforcers, particularly the Task Force Usig of the Philippine National Police, to make the arrests and make possible the resumption of criminal proceedings against the two accused before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. For the widower and children of Marlene Esperat, it means a step closer to  closure in their quest for justice which began in 24 March 2005 when a gunman walked into their house in Tacurong City, Sultan Kudarat, and shot Marlene.

Notorious for its protracted conduct, Philippine court litigation has been described by some legal luminaries as “inter-generational.”  In many cases, it has become a matter of settling for the lesser evil.  In this instance, three months shy of two years waiting for a just decision is certainly preferable to receiving a swift but unjust one.

This is not to say the judiciary is incapable of rendering just decisions promptly, but more often than not, clogged court dockets make it an exception rather than the rule.  Oft-abused provisions of the Rules of Court add to this woe.

In finding Montañer and Sabay guilty of forum shopping, the appellate court cited the Supreme Court in a 2001 case, “The most important factor in determining forum shopping is the ‘vexation caused the courts and the parties-litigants by a party who asks different courts to rule on the same or related causes or grant the same or substantially the same relief.’”  With the recognition that forum shopping causes “vexation” on the part of the courts and parties-litigants, it is hoped that the judiciary will no longer tolerate such delaying tactics.

For the media community, the decision represents a battle won in the war against the culture of impunity that has encouraged the continuing killing of journalists.  Because this is the first time that the alleged masterminds have been charged before the courts, and are likely to be arrested and tried, it will send one more message to those who cannot abide the work of journalists and who choose to silence them that they will not always get away with murder.

For more information, please contact the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, FFFJ Secretariat, at the following numbers: (+632) 894-1314 / 840-0903 / 894-1326 / 840-0889 (telefax).

Thirty-six members of the International Freedom of Expression eXchange (IFEX) together with the Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD) and the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) urged members of the Philippine Court of Appeals to “recognize the obligation of the judiciary to uphold the right to freedom of expression, in accordance with the international and constitutional obligations of the Philippines”in a letter dated 1 June 2011.

The group expressed concern over the appellate court’s resolution asking NUJP secretary-general Rowena Paraan and Monette Salaysay, widow of Ampatuan massacre victim Napoleon Salaysay to explain why they should not be cited for contempt after allegedly criticizing the appellate court in a 2 March 2011 demonstration. If found guilty, both Paraan and Salaysay will face imprisonment. (Read more here.)

The letter cited a 10 December 2002 Joint Declaration by the the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Representative on Freedom of the Media, and the Organisation of American States (OAS) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression saying that: “No restrictions on reporting on ongoing legal proceedings may be justified unless there is a substantial risk of serious prejudice to the fairness of those proceedings and the threat to the right to a fair trial or to the presumption of innocence outweighs the harm to freedom of expression.”

“We accept that there is a need to protect the courts against statements that might undermine the fairness of proceedings, such as intimidation of witnesses. But we feel confident that the Philippine courts are able to withstand strong, even unfair, criticism and yet render justice. This is particularly true where, as is the case here, no jury is involved,” the letter stated.

Click here to read the rest of the letter.

Statement of the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility

on the occasion of World Press Freedom Day, May 3, 2011

AS IN THE PAST, WORLD PRESS FREEDOM DAY 2011 is being commemorated after a year (May 2010-May 2011) of global and national turmoil.

Iraq and Afghanistan continued to occupy media attention and to subject journalists to the usual perils of covering conflict areas. Five journalists were killed in Iraq in 2010, and two in Afghanistan.  And while the unrest in the Middle East and North Africa was among the unique characteristics of 2010-2011, the political crises in Egypt, Tunisia. Yemen, Bahrain, Syria and Libya did subject journalists to the same perils of being killed, threatened, harassed or abducted while doing their jobs. Four journalists were killed in Libya, two in Egypt, and several others abducted.

The Philippine media situation has resisted change despite the change of administration in July 2010.  The Ampatuan Massacre trial  is continuing, but in terms of results has virtually come to a standstill, bogged down in the tedious processes involved in resolving technical issues, even as the killing of journalists has continued, with nine cases of journalists killed, of which six were work related.

The same ethical and professional shortcomings that have made the media the subject of citizen skepticism and even scorn still haunt media practice, with the performance of the media, whether print, broadcast or online, being uniformly problematic.  Plagiarism was a nagging problem, together with sensationalism, lack of fairness and balance, biased reporting, and corruption.  Problems related to job security, as well as the usual issues of low salaries and limited or non-existent benefits were also prominent during the May 2010 to May 2011 period.

Attempts to legislate a freedom of information act are continuing even as the 15^th Congress pursues efforts to pass a right of reply law initiated by the 14^th Congress despite media and press opposition.

While the Aquino administration had pledged to respect press freedom and to stop the killing of journalists, Mr. Aquino has not taken the concrete steps needed to create the conditions necessary to end the culture of impunity. Neither has he been reticent in criticizing the media, at one point accusing them of criminal behavior, later of sensationalism, focusing on his love life,  and  ignoring the achievements of his administration, while at the same time urging advertisers to advertise only in “responsible media organizations”.

In these circumstances, the tasks of the media advocacy and journalists’ organizations remain as urgent as ever: it is to defend press freedom in difficult circumstances through self-examination, self -regulation and reform.  The process has been difficult and as glacial in pace as everything else has been in the Philippine setting, but it is essential that the effort at self criticism and self regulation for the sake of better media and the defense of press freedom are pursued with renewed vigor and commitment.

AS THE NATION takes its annual Holy Week retreat, the advocates for justice for slain journalists and press freedom protection recall their hopes in your assumption to power and your promise for renewal and change.

You campaigned not only on a promise to fight corruption, but also to uphold human rights and the rule of law. Your appointment of former Commission on Human Rights Chair Leila de Lima as Secretary of Justice sent a strong signal to the country that your officials would help fulfill the promise you made in a number of your speeches: that you will put closure to human rights killings and hold the murderers accountable. In a speech on the 62^nd anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in December last year, you recalled how your own family had been victims of the human rights violations at the hands of a repressive government, along with other Filipinos.

But those of us who have championed the cause of slain journalists are alarmed; there are today more assassins and masterminds who have so far escaped punishment than the few who have been tried and convicted. For so long as this impunity reigns, all Filipinos, not only journalists and media workers, but ordinary citizens as well, will continue to be at risk.

A number of these killings involve local government officials and officers of the Philippine National Police. We are anxious because you have not taken any significant action to show political will to put an end to impunity and to launch the presidential initiatives needed to begin the process of change.

We realize that the barriers to justice may be so deeply embedded in the very system of governance, including the courts. We know that court supervision is beyond executive prerogative. But the power and capability of the president resonates in different ways and we still believe that in our system, executive action can have a positive impact on the conduct of the judicial system, as it does on the legislature.

The Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists, Inc. (FFFJ), a national network of press oriented organizations, together with the undersigned media organizations and mass communication faculty and students, is calling for concrete action at this time. We realize that there are many other urgent problems that call for your attention. But you were elected because the people were hungry for change, and you thwart that belief in the possibility of change at the risk of the people’s loss of faith in the capacity of the system to deliver justice.

The killing of journalists is part of the culture of impunity, and no real and lasting reform is possible in such a context.  While there are other victims, journalist victims stand out because they make news. However, the gains made to stop journalist killings will not protect journalists alone, but will effectively redound to the greater public safety of all citizens.

On  July 9, 2010, or only a week after Your Excellency assumed the Presidency, broadcaster Miguel Belen of Camarines Sur was shot, and died 22 days later, on July 31. Six months later, on January 24, 2011, Gerardo Ortega was gunned down in Puerto Princesa, Palawan while in a used clothing store.  It has since been established that both killings were work-related.

A third killing, that of Malabon broadcaster Len Flores Sumera, occurred on March 24, 2011 exactly two months after the Ortega killing.  It was six years to the day since the killing of Marlene Esperat in Tacurong City, Sultan Kudarat province. Although her relatives and colleagues say that she was probably killed because of a land dispute, Sumera’s murder could still be work- related as  she had included this issue in her radio program.

Three other journalists were killed between July 3, 2010—two days after Your Excellency assumed the Presidency—and January 31, 2011. While probably not work-related, these killings are part of the same culture of impunity that has allowed to go unpunished the murder not only of journalists but also that of political activists, human rights workers, members of the clergy, lawyers and even progressive local officials.

Whether or not the killings of these journalists were work-related, their murders and that of their colleagues as well as fellow citizens are sorry indicators of the continuing erosion of the rule of law. Because they are among the dozens of murders of journalists and other citizens that have not been resolved, or the cases of which are proceeding in fits and starts in the judicial system, they also encourage further killings.

The most high-profile case of all, that of the 58 men and women killed on November 23, 2009 in Ampatuan town, Maguindanao province, belongs in the latter category. Fifteen months since the Massacre, in which 32 journalists and media workers were killed together with 26 others, the cases against the alleged masterminds and killers have hardly moved. Even more dangerously, however, these killings enfeeble the Philippine state, demonstrating that it cannot enforce its own laws, and protect its own citizens within its own territory.

More immediately, the failure to prosecute the killers of journalists as well as those of political activists and the masterminds behind these crimes is sending the dangerous signal that, as in the administration of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, the killings can continue during your watch without the perpetrators being punished. That failure will confirm that impunity will continue to reign, and those with the means will not stop the use of violence against those they wish to silence.

Mr. President, what is needed is concrete action that will turn the page in the public mind: action that will send a signal that the executive will do all that is necessary and within its power to counter impunity.

In a meeting on August 8, 2010, the FFFJ and the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines discussed their concerns with Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, Secretary Herminio Coloma of the Presidential Communications Operations Office and Presidential Spokesperson Edwin Lacierda. Among other initiatives, we recommended 1) the strengthening of the Witness Protection Program; and 2) the formation of Multi-Sectoral Quick Response Teams which will combine both investigative, forensic and other police actions on the killing of journalists. We also asked for steps that would accelerate the pace of the Ampatuan Massacre trial, and, for long-term reform, a review of the rules of court to diminish the possibility of abuse and manipulation.

We understand that it has been less than a year since that meeting. But we are alarmed by the unabated killing of journalists and political activists, and the continuing human rights violations which undermine Philippine democracy more than any rebellion. We reiterate the need for your administration to act now to prevent the further deterioration and the recurrence of more killings – if only to retain the public’s confidence in the promise of reform.

We are joined in this call by other media organizations which see the weakness of the judicial system as central to the dismantling of the culture of impunity. We know that the president is confronted daily by many challenges. We are aware that you have inherited the fallout from the previous administration’s neglect and indifference, from nine years under your predecessor’s watch when the number of work-related killing of journalists and media workers killed rose to 117.

As we pause from daily routine in this period of spiritual contemplation and renewal, we ask once again that you draw strength from our advocacy to end the impunity that has punished the Filipino people for so long.

Signed by:

Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists

Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility

Center for Community Journalism and Development

Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism

Selected faculty members of the University of the Philippines-College of Mass Communication

Dr. Roland Tolentino, Dean
Dr. Elizabeth Enriquez, Department of Broadcast Communication
Prof. Data Tolentino-Canlas, Department of Broadcast Communication
Prof. Melba Estonilo, Department of Broadcast Communication
Dr. Lourdes Portus, Department of Communication Research
Prof. Lourdes Simbulan, Department of Journalism
Prof. Danilo Arao, Department of Journalism
Prof. Luis Teodoro, former dean
Dr. Elena Pernia, former dean
Prof. Cenon Palomares, UP Film Institute
Dr. Florinda Mateo, Department of Communication Research

BusinessWorld

College Editors Guild of the Philippines

National Union of Journalists of the Philippines

Statement of the Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists, National Union of Journalists of the Philippines and the November 23 Movement

March 2, 2011

THE AMPATUAN Massacre trial has entered a crucial phase. This week, barely two weeks after the 15th month since 58 men and women including 32 journalists and media workers were brutally murdered in one of the worst attacks on democracy and press freedom in Philippine history, the Court of Appeals will be deciding on the petition for certiorari filed by suspended ARMM (Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao) governor Zaldy Ampatuan.

Should the petition prosper, Mr. Ampatuan will be dropped from the list of those accused of masterminding and carrying out the massacre of November 23, 2009, and will be released from detention. If new evidence is found to once more include him in the conspiracy and multiple murder charges, the process will have to begin all over again. There is also the fear that, like a number of other accused Ampatuans who are still at large, he will manage to avoid arrest.

Mr. Ampatuan filed his petition for certiorari against Alberto Agra, the last Justice Secretary of the Arroyo government. On the basis of the weakest defense against criminal charges, the alibi that he was not in Maguindanao at the time of the massacre, Mr. Ampatuan was dropped by Mr. Agra last year from the list of persons accused of planning the massacre and participation in the killing of the 58 victims. Mr. Agra later reversed himself, and returned the name of Mr. Ampatuan among the accused. Mr. Ampatuan has since filed his petition with the Court of Appeals, alleging abuse of discretion on the part of Mr. Agra for reversing himself.

We are not prejudging the guilt or innocence of Mr. Ampatuan. Both also assume that the justices of the Court of Appeals will base their decision on the strength and credibility of the evidence Mr. Ampatuan has submitted.  But for the significance of the trial and its relevance to Philippine democracy and press freedom, it is imperative that the process be perceived as credible and beyond question.

Should the perpetrators of the massacre, whoever they are, literally get away with murder, it will send the strongest message yet that neither the murder of journalists in such numbers, or that of politicians’ families and their partisans, can move the justice system to begin to dismantle the culture of impunity, or exemption from punishment, that has taken deep roots in Philippine society. It will also encourage further killings. It is crucial not only to the media, but also and even more importantly, to Philippine democracy, that the Ampatuan Massacre trial deliver to the kin of the slain the justice that has eluded so many in this country.

Some of the families of the slain journalists have filed a petition for two CA justices—Danton Bueser and Marlene Gonzales—to inhibit themselves from hearing the Zaldy Ampatuan petition because of doubts over their impartiality. Both had inhibited themselves from hearing the petition of Ampatuan patriarch Andal Sr. They should have disclosed their reasons for doing so as mandated by the new code of judicial conduct, but did not. Why should they then be part of a panel that will decide the Zaldy Ampatuan petition which is intimately related to the first petition?

We call for complete transparency on the part of the Court of Appeals. But it is also for the country’s media, journalists’ and media advocacy organizations as well as civil society groups, people’s organizations and the public at large to vigilantly monitor the process so its integrity can be accurately evaluated in keeping with their sovereign right as citizens to have their voices heard on matters of public concern and urgency.
Signed:

Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists

National Union of Journalists of the Philippines

Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility

November 23 Movement

Philippine Center for Photojournalism

Center for Community Journalism and Development

College Editors’ Guild of the Philippines

Statement of the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR)

on the 15^th month since the Ampatuan Massacre of November 23, 2009

THE TRIAL of those formally accused in the Ampatuan Massacre, numbering 51 out of the 195 individuals suspected of involvement in it, is ongoing and should be discouraging the further killing of journalists.  That it isn’t—Palawan journalist Gerardo Ortega was murdered only a month ago, the second journalist killed in the line of duty since July 2010 when the Aquino III administration took over—indicates that for the slowness of the process, and its consequent failure to prevent further killings, it might as well not be taking place at all.

Prior to the Massacre, it was the impunity, or exemption from punishment, of the killers of journalists that was encouraging further killings.  For the number of its victims, and the brutality with which the killings were carried out, the Massacre compelled the Arroyo government and the Department of Justice to respond with unwonted speed and attention in late 2009 by hastening the investigation of the incident, identifying the main suspects, and even placing Maguindanao province under martial law and declaring a state of emergency in Sultan Kudarat province and Cotabato City.

The flurry of activity in government, and the media and public attention that characterized the period immediately following the Massacre, only briefly suggested that the killing of journalists would henceforth be speedily resolved and the perpetrators tried and punished. It did not last long enough to prevent the killing in July 2010 of Miguel Belen in Nabua, Camarines Sur.  The reason is obvious: the judicial process has not progressed quickly enough to hold the attention of the media, and therefore of the public.

The media thrive on constant change, on events new and significant. But very little has happened in the Massacre trial over the last several months.  The hearings on the petition for bail of one of the accused principals, Andal Ampatuan Jr., have ended without any decision so far, and the trial on the merits for the other Ampatuans in the case is still to be held.  Andal Ampatuan Sr., who is also among those accused of masterminding the Massacre, is yet to be arraigned despite the dismissal of his petition for certiorari last 31 January 2011. Zaldy, Akmad “Tato” Sr., Anwar and Sajid Islam are all likewise detained but have yet to be arraigned.

The delay in the process may not be the only reason for the resumption of the killing of journalists, but is almost certainly one of the reasons, indicating as it does that the filing of charges against the suspected killers of journalists is no guarantee that they will be punished.

The Free Legal Assistance Group has argued for the need to review the rules of court and other procedural structures that delay the judicial process and result in the denial of justice. While such a review and the consequent changes may themselves take time, there is no better opportunity than now to do such a review and to propose the changes needed to speed up the process. The Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility urges the media, civil society, lawyers’ groups and others to lend their support to this campaign in furtherance of the need to provide the aggrieved in our society, and not just the slain journalists and their kin, the justice that has been eluding them for decades.

Statement of the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility in commemoration of the  first anniversary of the Ampatuan Massacre

THE 2009 Ampatuan Massacre of 58 men and women including 32 journalists was a reminder and a warning to both the Philippine press and the entire country.

The Philippines is officially a democracy, but the pockets of warlord power that have been allowed to flourish in at least a hundred localities mock that claim. In places like Maguindanao, private armies decide elections and also wield the power of life or death over the men and women under warlord rule.

In those places, the Massacre also demonstrated, the power of the written and spoken word that many assume protect journalists and media workers is already meaningless. The 32 journalists and media workers killed who had accompanied the wife and kin of the then candidate for Maguindanao governor in filing his certificate of candidacy were supposed to protect the group, despite the fact that before the massacre,  81 journalists had been killed in the line of duty since 1986.

Although the worst incident of violence against journalists, the Ampatuan Massacre occurred in the context of the culture of impunity that has persisted in the Philippines. That culture has allowed and encouraged not only the killing of journalists, but also of political activists, judges, lawyers, human rights workers and other citizens. While officially at peace, the killing of journalists and media workers, and of over a thousand others killed extrajudicially, has also made many localities virtual war zones.

The new Aquino administration has the opportunity—by increasing the budget for witness protection, improving police efficiency, and enhancing the prosecutorial capacity of the Department of Justice, among others—to help end impunity.

The state failure to address the killing of journalists, and state involvement in extra judicial killings (EJKs), have made the culture of impunity the biggest threat to free expression and democracy in the Philippines.  The dismantling of that culture, CMFR has pointed out many times, is predicated on punishing the killers and masterminds in the killings, whether that of journalists or of political activists.

The sheer number of journalists killed in the Ampatuan Massacre, and the perils of warlord rule it demonstrated, have made the apprehension, trial and punishment of the killers and masterminds especially crucial. If its perpetrators are not punished, not only will it prove once more that warlord rule cannot be uprooted; it will also be the strongest signal yet that anyone may kill journalists and activists with impunity.

And yet the progress of the trial of those accused of planning and carrying out the Ampatuan Massacre has been agonizingly slow, once more demonstrating that the complexities of the legal system meant to protect the innocent have been effectively functioning in behalf of murderers and other criminals.  Many of the  rules governing court proceedings, it has also been pointed out, were put in place 50 years ago and need to be amended, or thrown out all together.  Under existing conditions, the trial of the accused could take a decade or more.

These conditions impose on the press the responsibility of keeping the Massacre and the trial of those accused of it in the public mind. But both the media and the citizenry must also seek and support amendments to the rules of court proposed by progressive lawyers so as to accelerate the judicial processes for the sake of that goal, so elusive in this country, of justice.

By the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR)

For more information please contact CMFR:
(+63 2) 894-1314/894-1326/840-0903/840-0889
staff@cmfr-phil.org
www.cmfr-phil.org
www.twitter.com/cmfr

THE CENTER for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) reiterates its warning, made in many other instances in the past, that media failure to regulate themselves will invite government intervention.

It is in fact happening now, with the introduction of a bill in the House of Representatives that would require TV and radio networks to delay the airing of broadcasts during crisis situations, in addition to the idea being bandied about that government should impose news blackouts during crises—meaning keep the media ignorant and out of crisis venues.

Both are properly the calls of media organizations, which should have enough sense to know when to delay the airing of broadcasts as well as when to “black out”, the fundamental criterion for the latter being the responsibility not to make an already bad situation worse.

The ethical and professional protocols of both in journalism practice are fairly well-established. These protocols warn against live broadcasts of interviews, police operations and other reports. The same protocols are the result not only of hundreds of years of experience and journalism practice, but also of journalists’ engagement with the contemporary issues of terrorism, conflict, kidnapping, and hostage-taking. Best practice dictates that these protocols be observed. That they were not has led to legislators’ introducing such bills as those mandating delayed broadcasts.

No matter how seemingly well meaning, in the Philippine experience, such bills end up covering more than they originally intended. With public support—and such support is likely given the growing outrage over police mishandling of the August 23 crisis as well as the media’s role in it—such bills will take on lives of their own, and are likely to end up imposing greater restrictions on press freedom itself.

The media must oppose any attempt at legislated journalism ethics, which is a patent contradiction in terms, journalism ethics being a matter of voluntary compliance. But the media must also address their own limitations and failings if they are to deserve and to hold the moral high ground when defending their hard-won freedom from government restraint.

We urge our colleagues to resist blaming the police for not having imposed restrictions on them. The self-regulatory regime in which the media function demands that they do not wait to be told what to do, given the basic responsibility to minimize harm. When the situation began to compromise the hostages, the media should have discontinued live coverage, and to delay broadcasting inflammatory statements and footage.

We ask the media to abandon the urge to excuse themselves and to have the good faith to accept the errors—errors likely to have prolonged the crisis last August 23, and worse, to have contributed to the deaths of nine people—that they committed, and from there to relearn the fundamental principles of covering such situations. The first imperative is to assume that any hostage-taker, terrorist, etc., is media-savvy enough—and in fact often count on the media to help further their cause—to monitor TV and radio broadcasts.

That principle was either forgotten, or was never really known, by the three leading networks last Monday, as a consequence of which they aired detailed accounts of police operations including SWAT team deployments, and aired live the arrest of the hostage-taker’s brother which could have triggered the shooting of the hostages. Claims that it did not do so—the hostage taker may have started shooting because he saw the police arresting his brother, or he fired because the police fired first, etc.—are irrelevant and miss the point: given the unpredictability of hostage-taker or terrorist reactions to TV or radio broadcasts, the point is to assume that he or she is monitoring the media and could therefore react to media reportage or commentary in unpredictable ways.

Resistance to government regulation can only be meaningful if the media honor the self-regulatory regime that the constitutional protection to press freedom so clearly demands. A review by the media of the principles involved in that regime, the events of Monday indicate, is called for so that there can be a reasonable certainty that in similar, future crises, media coverage will not make an already bad situation worse—and in furtherance of the core ethical principle of not causing, or, at the very least, minimizing, harm.